Farm Subsidies

[Birddog8487]

We have been discussing the bank bail-outs and the auto loans at length on these forums and it made me wonder how you all feel about farm subsidies. Do you consider farm subsidies socialism? Have you come out against the bail-outs while you personally receive federal farm subsidies? How do you justify this? I'm trying to get a handle on how much anti bail-out sentiment is based on people being fiscal conservatives and how much is anti Detroit 3, anti UAW sentiment. I've included a link http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=total_dp&yr=2007
showing where a lot of the agricultural assistance goes. Anyone surprised? Anyone going to stop eating food grown in the U.S.A until these subsidies end (I know a few people on here said they wouldn't buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle because they took federal loans). Total federal spending on agriculture in 2006 alone was 26 billion. Most of that money seems to have gone to large corporate farms and yet I have not seen the outrage that the bail-outs have wrought. Just wondering why. Just to be up-front about it, I receive about $800 a year for 4.9 acres I enrolled in CRP.

[Greenbush future]

Sorry, not well versed on FARM subsidies but in general they (subsidies) are a band aid on a seperate issue and eventaully become uneffective or abused. May not be the case with farms as I am not up to speed.

[eyecatcher]

I'm against corporate welfare of any kind. Farm subsidies were meant to aid family farmers and they have gotten completely out of hand as with any government they grow like Topsy and lose any of the original meaning. The department of Agriculture still has the REA. a program that has been obsolete since the 1960s yet is fully funded every year. Our government never sees a spending program that it doesnt like and will fight to the death to keep and increase any and boondoggles. People think the food stamp program was to help poor family it was a subsidy for farmers to help reduce surplus foods.
I say stop all corporate welfare and reform all social welfare programs adding a sunset provision to them so after a couple of years the recipients are dropped from the programs no more life time welfare families.

[pescadero]

Our government never sees a spending program that it doesnt like and will fight to the death to keep and increase any and boondoggles.

It isn't the government that fights to the death to keep and increase any all boondoggles - it's the people getting the money.

Farm subsidies exist as they do because farmers and agribusiness spends millions upon millions of dollars lobbying to keep it so.

--
lp

[Birddog8487]

It isn't the government that fights to the death to keep and increase any all boondoggles - it's the people getting the money.

Farm subsidies exist as they do because farmers and agribusiness spends millions upon millions of dollars lobbying to keep it so.

--
lp

So do a lot of sportsmens groups like Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited etc.. Has anyone stopped supporting these groups because of their support of these programs?

[BarryPatch]

100% against.

[S.NIEMI]

100% against.
What kind of farmer are you? I will keep bothering you.(unless thats an actuall attack on you) Disclaimer of sorts.:lol:

[plugger]

The current administration has said farm subsidies will be reduced or eliminated. There is a portion of farmers who dream of the gov getting out of the farm bussines. Smaller farmers with adequete finances to farm with uncertainy and tight financing could make their wildest dreams come true. When the gov dosent fund programs control of commodites and prices go to the producers. With no targets or storage incentives large corporate farms would find it very difficult to get financing to even put a crop in the ground. Prices would probably tank initialy as people sold off to try to survive the credit crunch. If you look back a year and a half the gov started to lose control, and world economies were still strong, the price of corn tripled in a short time. Without gov programs targets ect food prices will go wild at the smallest shortage. Some programs like crp cause the price of rented ground to be artificialy high. If the goverment takes a hands off approach to farming farmers will become the new elite.

[pescadero]

The current administration has said farm subsidies will be reduced or eliminated. There is a portion of farmers who dream of the gov getting out of the farm bussines. Smaller farmers with adequete finances to farm with uncertainy and tight financing could make their wildest dreams come true. When the gov dosent fund programs control of commodites and prices go to the producers. With no targets or storage incentives large corporate farms would find it very difficult to get financing to even put a crop in the ground. Prices would probably tank initialy as people sold off to try to survive the credit crunch. If you look back a year and a half the gov started to lose control, and world economies were still strong, the price of corn tripled in a short time. Without gov programs targets ect food prices will go wild at the smallest shortage. Some programs like crp cause the price of rented ground to be artificialy high. If the goverment takes a hands off approach to farming farmers will become the new elite.

We'll see...

Remember - no more farm subsidies means no more subsidized farm insurance, of any sort.

--
lp

[plugger]

No farm insurance will drasticaly limit financing and small farmers wont be forced to take out insurance.

[pescadero]

No farm insurance will drasticaly limit financing and small farmers wont be forced to take out insurance.

Which means they'll be farming less land and making less profit... never mind that the number of bankruptcies and financial volatility will greatly increase.

--
lp

[BarryPatch]

What kind of farmer are you? I will keep bothering you.(unless thats an actuall attack on you) Disclaimer of sorts.:lol:

I'm a "gentelman farmer". That means I own a farm (blueberries) but let someone else do all the work. Farming is just another family business. The government should keep out of it.

[BarryPatch]

We'll see...

Remember - no more farm subsidies means no more subsidized farm insurance, of any sort.

--
lp

Why does farm insurance need to be subsidized - other than to make it cheaper?

[Jim Sn.]

Farmers can qualify for federal assistance if the farm income is under $499,000/year. A bill was introduced to reduce this number and died in committee.

[pescadero]

Why does farm insurance need to be subsidized - other than to make it cheaper?

It doesn't need to be - but it will get more expensive and more difficult to get (and more difficult to collect on a claim) if all private.

[7iron]

It isn't the government that fights to the death to keep and increase any all boondoggles - it's the people getting the money.lp

Show us a welfare recipient that does't fight to keep thier "entitlement".

[pescadero]

Show us a welfare recipient that does't fight to keep thier "entitlement".

There isn't one - whether that welfare recipient is a crack mom on WIC, a farmer suckling at the government teat, or defense contractors.

--
lp

[plugger]

Without gov intervention and control farmers could set the price and you will pay it or starve. History has shown what can happen with a very minor food shortage.

[frenchriver1]

We subsidize tobacco farmers, and then have to deal with the cost of treating uninsured people who get cancer from smoking... Makes perfect sense to me...

[BarryPatch]

It doesn't need to be - but it will get more expensive and more difficult to get (and more difficult to collect on a claim) if all private.

If that is what it should cost then it should cost more. If the land is too marginal or risk prone it probably shouldn't be farmed. The costs should reflect the risk involved in order to reduce the risks taken by those that are insured.

[BarryPatch]

Without gov intervention and control farmers could set the price and you will pay it or starve. History has shown what can happen with a very minor food shortage.

Unlikely. Short term price spikes are possible (as with rice last year)but if the market is free people will always step in and make the margins rational. It's no different than any other business in that respect.

[yoopertoo]

People constantly try and confuse welfare with subsidies. Subsidies can and may encourage economic activity that is valuable to the country. Welfare is dressed up as compassion, but is most often nothing but economic parasitism. I don't consider either farm subsidies or the auto bail outs as welfare.

[yoopertoo]

I'm trying to get a handle on how much anti bail-out sentiment is based on people being fiscal conservatives and how much is anti Detroit 3, anti UAW sentiment. I've included a link
For me it is a no brainer. I have been very vigilant about buying american vehicles for many, many years. No more. It is not because of the bail outs per se. The amount of money we are dealing with in the case of the auto industry is peanuts in the scheme of things. It is because it has practically come to the point where helping the domestic auto industry is helping support a political machine that is hell bent on changing america in ways that I can not in good conscience support. I have decided to use my spending power as a political tool.

[Barothy]

Farm subsidies are a never-ending stream of money going special individuals. But don't call it welfare, they don't like that, it's beneath them. Calling it a "subsidy" has a much more business like tone to it.

[RoadKillCafe]

Just like I am all for a reset of congress, I am also for a total reset of subsidies, including the ones for foreign counties like Israel. Not that they are all bad, but we can neither afford all of them and they are so bloated and entrenched a reset is required.

[S.NIEMI]

Ok geniuses.....How will we compete with generous Canada? just for one example. Ya'll aint thinkin'.........

[Rootsy]

Subsidies are a double edged sword... They aid farmers by guaranteeing a price point so that we don't end up with a bunch of fallow ground due to foreign subsidizing and manipulation... In all actuality a small percentage of farmers receive the majority of the subsidies paid out yearly. On the other hand they allow government manipulation of an industry.

As long as cash crops, livestock and dairy products are commodities whose prices are set by people in suits in big cities then subsidies need to be in place. If they disappear then too will the American born food supply once the traders drive commodity prices into the ground... But feel free to end all food commodity subsidizing if you have no issue eating foreign grown and processed food...

This is not to say that subsidies and programs don;t need to be overhauled. Some of them certainly do. But you cannot just say, X em all period... I wish it were that easy and cut and dried.

I am a small farmer. I have never received a Gov't subsidy. I never plan on receiving on either. But I've been around long enough to understand that they have their place. At least until there is another way to ensure we always have a domestically produced food supply.

[TC-fisherman]

Next time your in Duluth in the fall take a look at all the ships getting ready to ship your tax dollars overseas in the form of subsidized grain. Didn't anyone think it was odd that a US flag ship ( the most expensive in the world to run) was off Somalia. It was because ships carrying US food aid (subsidized ag.) are required to be US Flagged.

The US is one of the largest exporters of food in the world. All these cheap exports are subsidized by the US taxpayers. Entire areas out west in the US would have zero income if it wasn't for US govt support. Its not just direct payments what about subsidized crop insurance. At the state level what about all the Ag stations payed for with state taxpayer money.

I always kid my friend who has a big horse farm about sucking at the govt teat. He gets a yearly check to not grow corn. Why pay someone not to grow corn? cause its cheaper than all the subsidies they get if they actually grow corn.

Agricultural subsidies are nothing more than welfare to keep rural areas intact.

There is about zero chance politically of anything being done about it though.

[Ranger Ray]

Subsidies are a double edged sword... They aid farmers by guaranteeing a price point so that we don't end up with a bunch of fallow ground due to foreign subsidizing and manipulation... In all actuality a small percentage of farmers receive the majority of the subsidies paid out yearly. On the other hand they allow government manipulation of an industry.

As long as cash crops, livestock and dairy products are commodities whose prices are set by people in suits in big cities then subsidies need to be in place. If they disappear then too will the American born food supply once the traders drive commodity prices into the ground... But feel free to end all food commodity subsidizing if you have no issue eating foreign grown and processed food...

This is not to say that subsidies and programs don;t need to be overhauled. Some of them certainly do. But you cannot just say, X em all period... I wish it were that easy and cut and dried.

I am a small farmer. I have never received a Gov't subsidy. I never plan on receiving on either. But I've been around long enough to understand that they have their place. At least until there is another way to ensure we always have a domestically produced food supply.
Yep.

[yoopertoo]

Next time your in Duluth in the fall take a look at all the ships getting ready to ship your tax dollars overseas in the form of subsidized grain. Didn't anyone think it was odd that a US flag ship ( the most expensive in the world to run) was off Somalia. It was because ships carrying US food aid (subsidized ag.) are required to be US Flagged.

The US is one of the largest exporters of food in the world. All these cheap exports are subsidized by the US taxpayers.

This is sensationalistic exaggeration.

As can be seen here http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Wheat/YBtable25.asp subsaharan Africa is the major receiver of our wheat(for example), but this still leaves huge exports to paying customers. If you don't like our wheat going to Africa then lobby congress to stop it, which would be a hoot. There is no way a democratic congress would stop food aid to Africa. Nor should it. In addition to food exports being an important economic component, subsidized food ends up on your table as well. We in America benefit from subsidized farm products.


Entire areas out west in the US would have zero income if it wasn't for US govt support. Its not just direct payments what about subsidized crop insurance. At the state level what about all the Ag stations payed for with state taxpayer money.

It can also be said that "entire areas out west" would have less need of government subsidies if the government got out of the way and allowed resources to be exploited. The left wants to convert the west into an environmental play ground with no regard to the future of the country or the people it robs.

He gets a yearly check to not grow corn. Why pay someone not to grow corn? cause its cheaper than all the subsidies they get if they actually grow corn.

Wildlife populations have benefited greatly from these "no farm" programs - especially duck and pheasant populations. I would find it unbelievable if the environmental community did not support these programs.


Agricultural subsidies are nothing more than welfare to keep rural areas intact.

This is categorically false. Subsidized farming, while I'm not saying is perfect or that it does not need to change, is NOT welfare. It generates real legitimate jobs in many industries. It generates real legitimate wealth. It produces real legitimate exports. It generates real legitimate economic activity. Disagreeing with economic policy is legitimate, but claiming every dollar is welfare is plain bunk.

The transparent and baseless tactic is to redefine welfare. The agenda of the left is to shift economic power to their base.

[TC-fisherman]

This is categorically false. Subsidized farming, while I'm not saying is perfect or that it does not need to change, is NOT welfare. It generates real legitimate jobs in many industries. It generates real legitimate wealth. It produces real legitimate exports. It generates real legitimate economic activity. Disagreeing with economic policy is legitimate, but claiming every dollar is welfare is plain bunk.

Take money from a productive sector of society and give it a business that could not survive on its own. Now do this year after year after year. Try to change it and the recipients act as if they are entitled to this govt handout. This business has so much extra capacity that it is the largest EXPORTER in the world.

This isn't Welfare? How about Socialism.


Give me a check for doing nothing. When i go out and buy a boat it will generate real legitimate wealth, it will create real legitimate jobs in industries, it will generate real legitimate economic activity.


Here's a little something from the conservative Heritage Foundation


How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too
by Brian M. Riedl


This year's expiration of federal agriculture policies gives Congress an important opportunity to take a fresh look at the $25 billion spent annually on farm subsidies. Current farm policies are so poorly designed that they actually worsen the conditions they claim to solve. For example:

* Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to com*mercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.

* Farm subsidies are intended to raise farmer incomes by remedying low crop prices. Instead, they promote overproduction and therefore lower prices further.

* Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by exclud*ing them from most subsidies, financing the con*solidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming.

* Farm subsidies are intended to be consumer-friendly and taxpayer-friendly. Instead, they cost Americans billions each year in higher taxes and higher food costs.

Lawmakers would be hard-pressed to enact a set of policies that are more destructive to farmers, taxpay*ers, and consumers than the current farm policies. For these and other reasons, organizations represent*ing taxpayers, consumers, environmentalists, inter*national trade, Third World countries, and even farmers themselves have united around the shared conclusion that the current farm subsidy system is failing and in dire need of reform during this year's reauthorization.

http://www.heritage.org/research/agriculture/bg2043.cfm

[yoopertoo]

Take money from a productive sector of society and give it a business that could not survive on its own. Now do this year after year after year. This business has so much extra capacity that it is the largest EXPORTER in the world.

This isn't Welfare?

No. Is it beneficial economic policy? Depends on the conditions and goals. With your definition public teachers salaries would be welfare. Hell, most government salaries would be welfare. Redefining government spent dollars to mean welfare is nothing but a political ploy as can be shown by its selective use.


How about Socialism.

It does indeed step closer.


Give me a check for doing nothing. When i go out and buy a boat it will generate real legitimate wealth, it will create real legitimate jobs in industries, it will generate real legitimate economic activity.

No, it is totally artificial demand, with no self-sustaining momentum. Busy work is not legitimate economic activity.


Here's a little something from the conservative Heritage Foundation

So what. Am I supposed to be impressed because you agree with the heritage foundation. There are monetary turf battles within the left and the right. This is not news. As I said, legitimate debate can be had about the benefit, or lack thereof, of any government spending.

[TC-fisherman]

No. Is it beneficial economic policy?

So it is beneficial economic policy to pay my friend not to grow corn (which he has not the slightest intention of doing) so he can graze his horses instead:rolleyes:

[yoopertoo]

So it is beneficial economic policy to pay my friend not to grow corn (which he has not the slightest intention of doing) so he can graze his horses instead
It is beneficial economic policy to maintain an industry that has intrinsic long term and short term value to this nation. It is beneficial economic policy to maintain a skill set with real production value.

[Bwana]

Welfare and subsidies are indeed a redistribution of wealth, but I don't think they should be lumped in together. Imho, the difference is a subsidy promotes a national priority. Generally speaking, I am against subsidies but I do favor them in certain situations such as national defense and for new industry incubation. I think there's an enormous amount of waste in our farming situation, but I think the nation generally benefits from a stable food supply and the resulting stable prices. Commodities are notorious for boom-and-bust cycles which lead to imbalances at both ends which hurts consumers and farmers alike. With that said, I think there is significant room for improvement but we never seem to fix the problems because of the political muscle of the farming states.

[S.NIEMI]

Welfare and subsidies are indeed a redistribution of wealth, but I don't think they should be lumped in together. Imho, the difference is a subsidy promotes a national priority. Generally speaking, I am against subsidies but I do favor them in certain situations such as national defense and for new industry incubation. I think there's an enormous amount of waste in our farming situation, but I think the nation generally benefits from a stable food supply and the resulting stable prices. Commodities are notorious for boom-and-bust cycles which lead to imbalances at both ends which hurts consumers and farmers alike. With that said, I think there is significant room for improvement but we never seem to fix the problems because of the political muscle of the farming states.
Crap........Wish I had something to argue with you about.;)